Mueller turns up the heat on impeachment

[The Barbarian]

It's not just radical leftists like Alinsky or Trump; those rules came from the Italian fascists and later Goebbels and his ilk.

So it's no surprise that Trump and his minions would employ them. As usual, the cure for propaganda is to confront it, and debunk it until the bad guys are sorry they even brought up the idea.

 

[ok doser]

It's not just radical leftists like Alinsky or Trump; those rules came from the Italian fascists and later Goebbels and his ilk.

So it's no surprise that Trump and his minions would employ them. As usual, the cure for propaganda is to confront it, and debunk it until the bad guys are sorry they even brought up the idea.

which bad guys would that be - the leftist italian facists, the leftist germans like goebbels, the leftist americans like alinsky or the right who finally figured how to turn it on the leftists?

of course, you're only whining because trump is using those tactics effectively :darwinsm:

 

[ok doser]

:rotfl:

So you don't care that multiple people accused him falsely and half the nation, including a blanket denouncement by one party, just went along with it.

You're going with "temperament"? :rotfl:

Fine. I think his temperament was not strident enough. He should have told his accusers to go to hell and walked out. That would have been worthy of a seat on something calling itself a "supreme" court.

a woman accused him of raping her fifty years ago although she had never made the claim before


why wouldn't you expect everybody to believe her?

 

[Stripe]

You mean the time when half the US went nuts and falsely accused a nominee of rape because they hate donaldtrump?

That fiasco?
..,.,.,..You mean the time when half the US went nuts and falsely accused a nominee of rape because they hate donaldtrump?

That fiasco?
looking back; yes, half or more were duppted to do mda trunmop

Don't drink and post.

 

[Town Heretic]

:rotfl:So you don't care that multiple people accused him falsely and half the nation, including a blanket denouncement by one party, just went along with it.

I actually didn't speak to that, though I have before. What I said and what you failed to respond to is that I supported him until his demonstrated demeanor argued me out of it. I held him to the same standard he instructed was important, when teaching students about the what a judge should be and how he should conduct himself.

Given there were any number of conservative justices with similar qualifications, but without that failing, he lost my support. As to whether or not the one woman who testified was telling the truth, or there was a different truth between the two, I can't know.

You're going with "temperament"? :rotfl:

I am. It's of critical importance in a justice. He thought so too and said as much before he became part of the process.

Fine. I think his temperament was not strident enough.

You are certainly free to take exception to his litmus, but he failed it. And he was right about it going in. I was sorry to see it, because in many ways I believe he was an able jurist, one tainted by an inability to survive the process with his principles intact.

He should have told his accusers to go to hell and walked out.

He nearly did.

That would have been worthy of a seat on something calling itself a "supreme" court.

All you do with that observation is disqualify your own judgment on the point. And that's not just my opinion, it was his too.

 

[ok doser]

So, another day no impeachment?

 

[annabenedetti]

This is a very interesting read, though I have no hope of the hearings going the suggested route:

How Congress Can Exploit Mueller’s Legal Mistakes

The investigator made important errors in his Trump report. To make them count on Wednesday, members need to take a lesson from Watergate and hand over the microphone.

And because not many will click the link:

If recent history is any guide, Robert Mueller’s much-anticipated Capitol Hill appearance on Wednesday will fizzle into a mix of political grandstanding by the questioners and frustratingly narrow answers from the star witness. Congress's biggest public chance to highlight the links between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the president's acts of obstruction, will become a chance for members to showcase their wit, score politcial points and maybe even go viral with a dramatic exchange. This one was originally scheduled for last week, and a main reason for its delay is that the junior members of the Judiciary committee wouldn’t have enough time to get their own questions in.

So far, the solution has been to expand the hearing time. Here’s a better one: None of the members should ask the questions at all.

Their expert staffers should ask all the questions—not just to resolve the battle of egos, but to give Congress its only chance to make any real progress on the issue.

To go by Mueller's previous statements, the hearings aren't likely to turn up new information about the Trump campaign. But they could genuinely change the trajectory of the Trump-Russia story, by drawing connections between the report and Mueller's earlier rounds of indictments, and also by highlighting Mueller's legal errors—the opportunities he didn't take, and why he skipped them.
But that's only possible with the right format. The hearings are almost guaranteed to be a waste of time if they stick to the format of disjointed five-minute rotating rounds of questions by elected members. This format has proved to be a failure in the high-profile hearings of the past two years. Time and again, just when a member starts to make headway with follow-up questions, time runs out. Republican members alternate with Democratic members who have totally different political agendas; real progress as the hearing continues is rare. . . .

The Mueller team’s fact-finding is so thorough, so important, and so damning of Trump’s criminal behavior, that committees need to highlight and emphasize those aspects of his work without the exercise feeling like a partisan gang tackle. Whereas the members of Congress might have a hard time maintaining an even tone, veteran litigators are more likely to keep their cool while keeping up an intense line of questioning. Mueller is rightly a respected, revered public servant, which makes any tough question akin to cross-examination risky and awkward.
​

Hopefully someone will click the link, one reason being the piece clearly presents where the report falls short, and why. It's just too long to paste the whole thing.

 

[annabenedetti]

[h=1]GOP blocks election security bills after Mueller testimony[/h]
Senate Republicans blocked two election security bills and a cybersecurity measure on Wednesday in the wake of former special counsel [FONT=&quot]Robert Mueller warning about meddling attempts during his public testimony before congressional lawmakers.

Democrats tried to get consent to pass two bills that would require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission about foreign offers of assistance, as well as a bill to let the Senate Sergeant at Arms offer voluntary cyber assistance for personal devices and accounts of senators and staff.
[/FONT]

 

[annabenedetti]

I wasn't able to watch the hearings today, and am only just now trying to catch up on how it went.

 

[Stripe]

I wasn't able to watch the hearings today, and am only just now trying to catch up on how it went.

I can tell you how it went without watching.
Democrats painted donaldtrump as a racist, Russian spy who lies.
Republicans criticized Democrats.
The guy in the hot seat said nothing new.

Democracy.

 

[Idolater]

I can tell you how it went without watching.
Democrats painted donaldtrump as a racist, Russian spy who lies.
Republicans criticized Democrats.
The guy in the hot seat said nothing new.

Democracy.

Ah, but! Did Mueller or did he not, refer to the President of the United States as 'Trimp?' Can you tell me that, without watching?

 

[ok doser]

https://images.app.goo.gl/Jpg4PHForWFgnRNL7

 

[annabenedetti]

This seems to sum things up pretty well:



@RepAdamSchiff


Here’s what Mueller said:

Russia interfered in our election to help Trump.

Russians made numerous contacts with the campaign.

Campaign welcomed their help.

No one reported these contacts or interference to FBI.

They lied to cover it up.

 

[Stripe]

Ah, but! Did Mueller or did he not, refer to the President of the United States as 'Trimp?' Can you tell me that, without watching?

Who is Muller? :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

This seems to sum things up pretty well:



@RepAdamSchiff


Here’s what Mueller said:

Russia interfered in our election to help Trump.

Russians made numerous contacts with the campaign.

Campaign welcomed their help.

No one reported these contacts or interference to FBI.

They lied to cover it up.

So the impeachment is going forward?

 

[Town Heretic]

This seems to sum things up pretty well:



@RepAdamSchiff


Here’s what Mueller said:

Russia interfered in our election to help Trump.

Russians made numerous contacts with the campaign.

Campaign welcomed their help.

No one reported these contacts or interference to FBI.

They lied to cover it up.

It's beginning to look a lot like obstruction. :guitar:

 

[Stripe]

It's beginning to look a lot like desperation.

 

[Town Heretic]

What amazes me is how his clown car congressional support was scrambling to both attack the narrative and not stir Muller more than they had to while doing it.

 

[Stripe]

‘Mueller Hearing Won’t Be A Circus,’ Say 235 Democrats In A Volkswagen

Robert Mueller is testifying before the House Judiciary Committee today. Earlier this morning, a Volkswagen pulled into the Capitol rotunda and onlookers watched with delight and wonder as all 235 congressional Democrats poured out of the car until committee chairman Jerry Nadler finally emerged wearing a baggy polka dot outfit, gigantic shoes, white makeup and a fright wig and announced to reporters that he did not want the hearing to turn into some kind of circus.

In a statement made by honking his nose in Morse code, Nadler announced, "We know that people have read the Mueller Report. We know that they’ve seen the movie. We know that they watched the mini-series, read the graphic novel and received excerpts we stuffed into their fortune cookies and printed on their rolls of toilet paper, but have they really had the information pumped directly into their brains through electric wires until they cry out in agony and promise never to vote for someone we elites dislike ever again?"

 

[Town Heretic]

Meanwhile, it looks like the big moment of the day's testimony came with an inadvertent blunder by Republican Representative, Ken Buck.

Buck had been hammering at Muller and accused him of throwing a lot of "stuff" at the wall to see what would stick relating to obstruction, after he'd concluded Russian interference with the election had taken place.

Muller: I would not agree with that characterization at all.

Buck: Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?

Mueller: Yes.

Buck (appearing startled): You believe you could charge the president of the United States with an obstruction of justice after he left office?

Muelle: Yes.

And now you know why Trump said what he did to former AG Sessions.

From the report: "...when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm [profanity redacted]."